Trump Lawyer Argues He Could Legally Order Assassination Of Political Rival
Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.
Jack Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, made the “absolute immunity” argument in a Supreme Court hearing in the Department of Justice election interference case against the former president. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that the ex-president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” he did while in office.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.
Sotomayor seemed taken aback at that line of reasoning.
...
“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.
“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-immunity-supreme-court_n_662a6777e4b09d8df9d5b71fOpen linkView original on feddit.uk
They should have asked if the president can order the assassination of a Supreme Court Judge or a senator. Would love the justification.
And don't even frame it as a nameless hypothetical. Get specific.
"Are you arguing that Joe Biden could order the assassination of Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump, and if the Democratic Senate doesn't convict on impeachment, he gets away with it?"
I would pay good money for one of them to ask that exact question, but sadly, I'm a little too poor to buy my own SCOTUS justice. Maybe we could start a gofundme and crowdsource it?
I got 5 on it
I'd put in the remaining $5 needed for Thomas to be bought
I mean, there is no legal reason that Biden could not just put forth more candidates for the supreme court, right now.
Edit: The only actual reason is because Biden is a coward.
There is no constitutional reason it can't be amended, but there is a statutory reason Biden can't act unilaterally on that: the Judiciary Act of 1869 limits the SCOTUS to nine members.
Congress would have to let him.
Moscow Mitch piped up and preeminently accused Biden of 'packing the court', were he to increase the number of justices.
Really rich statement given Mitch is the real packer.
Coward? What is it for him to fear?
I'm not sure. As I said, there is no actual reason for him to not put forward more justices for the Supreme Court.
What does this even mean? Put them forward where?
Put them forward as in nominate them for approval to the bench
Approval to what? There are no open seats
Increase the size to 13 or something
He's not a coward.
He's rich, and we're not. Carlin said it best: It's a big club and you (meaning we in this case) ain't in it.
Why not just "retire" certain members of SCOTUS first. These people should be very afraid when the new president gets into office with these rules.
Actually I suppose that would be pretty easy...
To justices that think it's ok for presidents to order the assassination of rivals, Biden can say:
Ah, playing the fascist game against actual fascists. I wonder who will win that game. Hint: it's not the non fascists.
Well clearly this "They go low, we go high" shit isn't fucking working
You can't fold after you are all in. Gotta play the hand.
Ok, but has anyone checked to be sure that "Jack Sauer" is his real name? That sounds like a fake name a moron would make up. Like Eric Trump is wearing a moustache and trying to argue before the court to win his dad's affection.
"I'm not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one when dad asks"
It makes a lot of sense because he is probability also the only lawyer who still wants to work for Trump!
I will wait for this to come out on Netflix.
Dammit Chloe!
I think we should test this argument out.
Jokes aside, I expect they don't care about the verdict as long as it happens after the election. That's pretty much his only defense at this point
I can't see how any presidential candidate can believe in this while still being alive. Both can't be true
“I think it would depend on the circumstances.” That doesn’t sound very absolute then, if it depends. “Absolute” means absolute, not “well actually it would depend.” I think they have a particular set of use cases in mind for this “absolute immunity” thing.
I was about to say, you're using language that sounds very different from "absolute" there, buddy. Absolute is an "all or nothing" word, you can't say "well it's absolute immunity but only for certain things".
This is what happens when you are so toxic you can't hire any good lawyers.
Yeah, this guy is deconstructing his own argument. The argument put forth is "absolute immunity", you can't say "absolute immunity in certain circumstances". Either the president can act with complete impunity or they can't, it's a binary.
It's call setting the table.
They will definitely delay making that decision until after Biden can longer order the assassination of Trump. SCOTUS is complete shit.
They're arguing this for a reason
Because Trump wants to get re-elected (and he probably fucking will because Americans are dumbasses and Trump is thrashing Biden in the polls right now) and when he does he's going to assassinate political rivals.
Yo so does this mean paid assassin is a legal job?
Poor Tim Lambesis... /s
Has anyone played Secret Hitler? This is literally Trump asking the liberals for that sweet, sweet bullet.
EDIT: Downvote all you like, but it's a matter of fact, not opinion.
Presidents can and have assassinated US citizens.
Obama did it.
Indeed, and the legality has been challenged by the ACLU. Although they could not pursue to issue a condemnation.
The present case would be an excellent opportunity to resolve the question of whether or not a President is entitled to kill a US citizen and setup better checks and balances (because, in the case of Obama, there were definitely some, but those were disputable).
I appreciate the ACLU's efforts, but it's quite apparent that US presidents are above the law.